Maharashtra
Builder Pulled Up for Cutting Water Supply; Pune Consumer Commission Cracks Down
City - Pune
In a stern rebuke to arbitrary actions by developers, the Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Pune has come down heavily on a Narhe based M/s Ganaraj Developers builder for disconnecting the water supply of a flat owner merely for filing a complaint. Terming the act “illegal, high-handed and unjustified,” the Commission directed immediate restoration of water supply and restrained the developer from repeating such action until final adjudication.
The order was passed by the bench comprising President Dr. Arun Gaikwad and Members Pranali Sawant and Kanchan Gangadhare, granting significant interim relief to the complainant against M/s Ganaraj Developers and it’s partners naming Nilesh Charwad, Kiran Patole, Sunil Vaswand and Dattatray Beldare.
The complainant, a flat owner from Narhe, had approached the Commission alleging multiple deficiencies against the developer, including failure to obtain an Occupancy Certificate, non-provision of promised amenities such as lifts, and non-formation of a housing society. Aggrieved by these lapses, the flat owner initiated consumer proceedings.
₹8,000/month turned into ₹47 lakh-exact portfolio breakdown
No inheritance. No bonus windfall. A mid-level manager in Pune invested ₹8,000/month across 3 instruments for 9 years. Here is the exact split — fund names, allocation %, and the one change he made in year 5.
Hemant Jain
According to the complaint, the developer, allegedly acting in retaliation, disconnected the complainant’s water supply on January 15, 2023. Following issuance of notice by the Commission, the builder had temporarily restored the connection. However, in a subsequent act, the water supply was again disconnected on March 27 without prior notice, particularly when the complainant was out of station.
Left with no recourse, the complainant, once again approached the Commission seeking urgent intervention.
Advocate representing the complainant, argued that the developer’s conduct was not only retaliatory but also in blatant disregard of legal process, pointing out that even notices were being avoided. He emphasized that disconnection of water supply during peak summer without any prior intimation had caused severe hardship to the complainant and amounted to gross harassment.
He urged the Commission to treat the matter with urgency, highlighting that access to water is a fundamental necessity and cannot be curtailed as a coercive tactic.
Accepting the submissions, the Commission observed that prima facie, the act of disconnecting water supply without notice was arbitrary and illegal. It underscored that water is a basic human necessity and deprivation of the same, especially when temperatures are soaring close to 45°C, cannot be justified under any circumstances.
The Commission accordingly directed the developer to immediately restore the water supply and further ordered that it shall not be disconnected again till the final disposal of the complaint.
The main complaint concerning alleged service deficiencies remains under final hearing. However, the interim order has provided crucial relief to the complainant, reinforcing the principle that essential services cannot be weaponised by developers against consumers.
Advocate then welcomed the order, stating that the Commission’s timely intervention has safeguarded the complainant from undue hardship and upheld basic consumer rights.
The order was passed by the bench comprising President Dr. Arun Gaikwad and Members Pranali Sawant and Kanchan Gangadhare, granting significant interim relief to the complainant against M/s Ganaraj Developers and it’s partners naming Nilesh Charwad, Kiran Patole, Sunil Vaswand and Dattatray Beldare.
The complainant, a flat owner from Narhe, had approached the Commission alleging multiple deficiencies against the developer, including failure to obtain an Occupancy Certificate, non-provision of promised amenities such as lifts, and non-formation of a housing society. Aggrieved by these lapses, the flat owner initiated consumer proceedings.
₹8,000/month turned into ₹47 lakh-exact portfolio breakdown
No inheritance. No bonus windfall. A mid-level manager in Pune invested ₹8,000/month across 3 instruments for 9 years. Here is the exact split — fund names, allocation %, and the one change he made in year 5.
Hemant Jain
According to the complaint, the developer, allegedly acting in retaliation, disconnected the complainant’s water supply on January 15, 2023. Following issuance of notice by the Commission, the builder had temporarily restored the connection. However, in a subsequent act, the water supply was again disconnected on March 27 without prior notice, particularly when the complainant was out of station.
Left with no recourse, the complainant, once again approached the Commission seeking urgent intervention.
Advocate representing the complainant, argued that the developer’s conduct was not only retaliatory but also in blatant disregard of legal process, pointing out that even notices were being avoided. He emphasized that disconnection of water supply during peak summer without any prior intimation had caused severe hardship to the complainant and amounted to gross harassment.
He urged the Commission to treat the matter with urgency, highlighting that access to water is a fundamental necessity and cannot be curtailed as a coercive tactic.
Accepting the submissions, the Commission observed that prima facie, the act of disconnecting water supply without notice was arbitrary and illegal. It underscored that water is a basic human necessity and deprivation of the same, especially when temperatures are soaring close to 45°C, cannot be justified under any circumstances.
The Commission accordingly directed the developer to immediately restore the water supply and further ordered that it shall not be disconnected again till the final disposal of the complaint.
The main complaint concerning alleged service deficiencies remains under final hearing. However, the interim order has provided crucial relief to the complainant, reinforcing the principle that essential services cannot be weaponised by developers against consumers.
Advocate then welcomed the order, stating that the Commission’s timely intervention has safeguarded the complainant from undue hardship and upheld basic consumer rights.